Sony's 18-55 OSS kit lens ...

[veroman]

I've owned my NEX 7 for several months now and am enjoying it tremendously. I purchased it along with the seller's 18-55 and 55-210 OSS lenses, figuring I would upgrade to better glass once I'd learned about the camera. I recently added a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 (early version) and am more than pleased with it.

However, and contrary to nearly all reviews I've read of the 18-55 (it's supposed to be a real dog, with serious limitations for both enthusiast and pro photographer), I'm getting excellent results with my 18-55. It's certainly not as good the better Zeiss glass, but it's definitely much better than most of the reviews would have me believe. The 55-210 is, of course, a keeper and quite a good value for the money ... a really good performer as telephotos go.

The much pricier 18-105 and 16-70 OSS lenses haven't been getting rave reviews either. In fact, they both have been reported as having either very soft borders and corners (at any focal length and aperture) and pretty serious distortion issues, both barrel and pin cushion.

So, I'm keeping my 18-55 until something decidedly better (and affordable) comes along. Anyone else finding their 18-55 OSS to be dealing quite well with the highly sensitive 24MP sensors?

 

[kerpan]

While I use other lenses (auto and manual) for specific purposes (close-ups, concerts, etc.), the 18-55 is my default lens (using an A6000) and I have always been happy with the results (assuming I didn't screw things up myself).

 

[BlueBomberTurbo]

I had the 18-55 for quite some time on my A6000. Only real complaint I had about it was lots of chromatic aberration in harsh lighting. The 18-105 is much better at this, and all around sharper, though not as sharp as a high end 2.8 zoom.

 

[zackiedawg]

I have many times been tempted to pick up something like the 16-70mm lens - but keep deciding against it because my venerable old 18-55mm just does so well...whether the reviews were overly critical or had bad copies, or whether I just got one of the lucky gems, I don't know - but sharpness and color from my kit lens has always been very pleasing and more than acceptable for a kit. I picked mine up with my NEX-3 in 2011, and have used the same one ever since, on my NEX-5N, A6000, and now A6300.

 

[Willy81]

My LF 18-55mm (Hasselblad) is a true gem used on my A6300. I use a large verity of lenses on my A6300 (including Zeiss A-Mount with adapter) but my 18-55mm is my default and it delivers.

 

[val1]

.... I sometimes use the 18-55. IQ is far worse than the 18-105g but the package is smaller and it does not shadow the onboard flash. The 18-55 st iso 400 looks way better than the 18-105g at 3200. ;0

 

[brandon10]

I agree that the 18-55 zoom is a good lens, I've been happy with the results and I prefer it slightly over the 16-50. In particular it seems like the OSS is much better on the 18-55 than the 16-50 for video. Is that the case that various Sony lenses have different degrees of stabilization or am I imagining things?

 

[ttan98]

I have many times been tempted to pick up something like the 16-70mm lens - but keep deciding against it because my venerable old 18-55mm just does so well...whether the reviews were overly critical or had bad copies, or whether I just got one of the lucky gems, I don't know - but sharpness and color from my kit lens has always been very pleasing and more than acceptable for a kit. I picked mine up with my NEX-3 in 2011, and have used the same one ever since, on my NEX-5N, A6000, and now A6300.

 

[ttan98]

My LF 18-55mm (Hasselblad) is a true gem used on my A6300. I use a large verity of lenses on my A6300 (including Zeiss A-Mount with adapter) but my 18-55mm is my default and it delivers.

 

[Chen G]

95% of the people talking about how a lens isn't good enough, are blaming their lens for their own lack of skill and imagination.

Of course it is good enough, so long as it has the f-stop and focal length you need. You can be sure of that unless you really have some very specialized need for huge prints of extreme quality.

I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 18-105 f4 and I once had both in my possession, there's no real difference as far as IQ is concerned. Sure I can pixel peep for half an hour with images of perfectly flat brick walls, and then I can identify which lens took which image of the same wall. But that's simply not how you use photographic lenses.

The biggest reason I made the switch was because I don't like the look and feel of the kit lens, the plastic extension barrel is just super ugly and feels cheap. If you don't care about ergonomics, and more capable long end, there's no reason to switch off of the kit lens.

 

[zackiedawg]

I own 3 copies of Sony 18-55mm none of them are any good, took the punt bought the Hasseldbald copy of the Sony 18-55mm, this time the images output are really very good, my guess it that Hasel copies many have better QC and/or tighter spec place on them. This lens was on sale for US$150, a bargain as far as I am concern, in fact I using it now on travel to Egypt.

Back in the NEX3/5 days, there were a lot of discussions also about some differences between the very earliest 18-55mm kit lenses and the later ones that came along - it seemed most who had one of the early, made-in-Japan versions always had high praise for their copies, while it seemed more frequent complaints would arise on later versions of the lens. Could be something similar to the Hassy thing, where the earlier ones had better QC, or production shifts to another factory might have caused QC to fall a bit.

 

[ttan98]

95% of the people talking about how a lens isn't good enough, are blaming their lens for their own lack of skill and imagination.

Of course it is good enough, so long as it has the f-stop and focal length you need. You can be sure of that unless you really have some very specialized need for huge prints of extreme quality.

I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 18-105 f4 and I once had both in my possession, there's no real difference as far as IQ is concerned. Sure I can pixel peep for half an hour with images of perfectly flat brick walls, and then I can identify which lens took which image of the same wall. But that's simply not how you use photographic lenses.

The biggest reason I made the switch was because I don't like the look and feel of the kit lens, the plastic extension barrel is just super ugly and feels cheap. If you don't care about ergonomics, and more capable long end, there's no reason to switch off of the kit lens.

I don't think you are quite right because there are many compliants about the kit lens not all of the compliants can come from using this lens incorrectly. Some of them(users) are more competent than I am. I will tell you how I tested(*)my 3 lenses which are less than capable to give me inconsistent images,1. I tested on wall test charts the corners and edges are very blurring(**) at f 3.5 or f4.5 at all focal lengths and barely acceptable at F5.6 and above. At focal length 35mm and above the images are below my expectations even at F5.6. 2. The lens can give burring images at some spots, this occurs intermittently. To me these are unacceptable. You are lucky that your lens do not give you these images inconsistencies. My Haasslebald lens don't give me these inconsistent burring images. I still own 2 of the lenses and I cannot justify selling them to potential buyers. One of them was made in Japan and comes from Nex7. So you cannot say made in Japan lens is better than those from Thailand where most of the lenses are made even my Hasseldbald.

* From many images and close scrutiny.

** for comparison Canon 18-55mm ef-s don't give me that, their images appears to be sharper and crispier at those f-stops.

 

[ttan98]

I own 3 copies of Sony 18-55mm none of them are any good, took the punt bought the Hasseldbald copy of the Sony 18-55mm, this time the images output are really very good, my guess it that Hasel copies many have better QC and/or tighter spec place on them. This lens was on sale for US$150, a bargain as far as I am concern, in fact I using it now on travel to Egypt.

Back in the NEX3/5 days, there were a lot of discussions also about some differences between the very earliest 18-55mm kit lenses and the later ones that came along - it seemed most who had one of the early, made-in-Japan versions always had high praise for their copies, while it seemed more frequent complaints would arise on later versions of the lens. Could be something similar to the Hassy thing, where the earlier ones had better QC, or production shifts to another factory might have caused QC to fall a bit.

 

[Chen G]

95% of the people talking about how a lens isn't good enough, are blaming their lens for their own lack of skill and imagination.

Of course it is good enough, so long as it has the f-stop and focal length you need. You can be sure of that unless you really have some very specialized need for huge prints of extreme quality.

I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 18-105 f4 and I once had both in my possession, there's no real difference as far as IQ is concerned. Sure I can pixel peep for half an hour with images of perfectly flat brick walls, and then I can identify which lens took which image of the same wall. But that's simply not how you use photographic lenses.

The biggest reason I made the switch was because I don't like the look and feel of the kit lens, the plastic extension barrel is just super ugly and feels cheap. If you don't care about ergonomics, and more capable long end, there's no reason to switch off of the kit lens.

I don't think you are quite right because there are many compliants about the kit lens not all of the compliants can come from using this lens incorrectly. Some of them(users) are more competent than I am. I will tell you how I tested(*)my 3 lenses which are less than capable to give me inconsistent images,1. I tested on wall test charts the corners and edges are very blurring(**) at f 3.5 or f4.5 at all focal lengths and barely acceptable at F5.6 and above.

So? I never photograph perfectly flat walls anyway, and I suspect nobody does except when trying to find "flaws" in lenses.

At focal length 35mm and above the images are below my expectations even at F5.6.

Your expectations are unreasonable how large do you print? Do you print at all? Or do you mean it doesn't look sharp when zoomed in at 100% on your monitor which would've been equivalent to a 2 meter wide print?

2. The lens can give burring images at some spots, this occurs intermittently.

I'm sorry but that's impossible unless you have dirt in your lens. A lens cannot have "spots" of defects, it can have unsharp corners, centers, sides, but not spots. That's not how lens grinding works.

To me these are unacceptable. You are lucky that your lens do not give you these images inconsistencies. My Haasslebald lens don't give me these inconsistent burring images.

There is no "hasselbald" lens, it's a rebrand, it's exactly the same, it's called placebo effect.

I still own 2 of the lenses and I cannot justify selling them to potential buyers. One of them was made in Japan and comes from Nex7. So you cannot say made in Japan lens is better than those from Thailand where most of the lenses are made even my Hasseldbald.

* From many images and close scrutiny.

** for comparison Canon 18-55mm ef-s don't give me that, their images appears to be sharper and crispier at those f-stops.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

I had three different 18-55's and none of them were any good. I'd go as far as to say it's the worst lens I ever experienced. Just a little off the middle of the lens the sharpness plummeted and the corners were a blurred smeary mess. This made the lens very limited to subjects focused in the middle of the frame. Landscapes were a disaster.

 

[ttan98]

95% of the people talking about how a lens isn't good enough, are blaming their lens for their own lack of skill and imagination.

Of course it is good enough, so long as it has the f-stop and focal length you need. You can be sure of that unless you really have some very specialized need for huge prints of extreme quality.

I upgraded from the 18-55 to the 18-105 f4 and I once had both in my possession, there's no real difference as far as IQ is concerned. Sure I can pixel peep for half an hour with images of perfectly flat brick walls, and then I can identify which lens took which image of the same wall. But that's simply not how you use photographic lenses.

The biggest reason I made the switch was because I don't like the look and feel of the kit lens, the plastic extension barrel is just super ugly and feels cheap. If you don't care about ergonomics, and more capable long end, there's no reason to switch off of the kit lens.

I don't think you are quite right because there are many compliants about the kit lens not all of the compliants can come from using this lens incorrectly. Some of them(users) are more competent than I am. I will tell you how I tested(*)my 3 lenses which are less than capable to give me inconsistent images,1. I tested on wall test charts the corners and edges are very blurring(**) at f 3.5 or f4.5 at all focal lengths and barely acceptable at F5.6 and above.

So? I never photograph perfectly flat walls anyway, and I suspect nobody does except when trying to find "flaws" in lenses.

At focal length 35mm and above the images are below my expectations even at F5.6.

Your expectations are unreasonable how large do you print? Do you print at all? Or do you mean it doesn't look sharp when zoomed in at 100% on your monitor which would've been equivalent to a 2 meter wide print?

2. The lens can give burring images at some spots, this occurs intermittently.

I'm sorry but that's impossible unless you have dirt in your lens. A lens cannot have "spots" of defects, it can have unsharp corners, centers, sides, but not spots. That's not how lens grinding works.

To me these are unacceptable. You are lucky that your lens do not give you these images inconsistencies. My Haasslebald lens don't give me these inconsistent burring images.

There is no "hasselbald" lens, it's a rebrand, it's exactly the same, it's called placebo effect.

I still own 2 of the lenses and I cannot justify selling them to potential buyers. One of them was made in Japan and comes from Nex7. So you cannot say made in Japan lens is better than those from Thailand where most of the lenses are made even my Hasseldbald.

* From many images and close scrutiny.

** for comparison Canon 18-55mm ef-s don't give me that, their images appears to be sharper and crispier at those f-stops.

I don't want to argue with you it a waste of my effort.

 

[ttan98]

I had three different 18-55's and none of them were any good. I'd go as far as to say it's the worst lens I ever experienced. Just a little off the middle of the lens the sharpness plummeted and the corners were a blurred smeary mess. This made the lens very limited to subjects focused in the middle of the frame. Landscapes were a disaster.

What I obtained from my 3 lenses as well. Hi and tell it to ChenG he won't listen, because he is covering his. ears. Like you I know what I got the images are not a figment of my imaginations.

 

[migus]

I had three different 18-55's and none of them were any good. I'd go as far as to say it's the worst lens I ever experienced. Just a little off the middle of the lens the sharpness plummeted and the corners were a blurred smeary mess. This made the lens very limited to subjects focused in the middle of the frame. Landscapes were a disaster.

My current 18-55 copy is indeed unusable for many of my needs, being a "smeary mess" off center.

However, with care sometimes i can get a passable landscape with it. Practically, i use what happens to be available, albeit this kit is one of the worst i have. The other being its 16-50 progeny

 

[Daniel Lauring]

I had three different 18-55's and none of them were any good. I'd go as far as to say it's the worst lens I ever experienced. Just a little off the middle of the lens the sharpness plummeted and the corners were a blurred smeary mess. This made the lens very limited to subjects focused in the middle of the frame. Landscapes were a disaster.

My current 18-55 copy is indeed unusable for many of my needs, being a "smeary mess" off center.

However, with care sometimes i can get a passable landscape with it. Practically, i use what happens to be available, albeit this kit is one of the worst i have. The other being its 16-50 progeny

Nice way to use fog to cover the edge softness. Yours is softer on the left than right (decentered.). I don't think one I tried was as good as yours though. One of mine was so horribly decentered it was unusable.

 

[migus]

... and this is midrange and stopped at F8... alas, still softer than any of my P&S

My SEL18-55 and 16-50 epiphany was the 1-st time i tried to 'photocopy' some printed pages and whiteboards --i.e., my 'brick wall" daily exercise (research meetings, low light)-- only to realize that the Sony output was practically useless wide open at the bottom 18, resp. 16mm. My colleagues got better --i.e., usable-- shots w/ their phones.

Net: What i took for granted with my older Canikons, Samsung NX etc. -- shooting usable (print, screen, OCR) reproductions of printed matter, texts, graphics, equations, maps from letter size up to full size academic whiteboards, was a humbling (failed) experiment with a few copies of these 2 SEL kits.

Initially i thought my sony kits were broken... few copies and many readings later i learned otherwise.

This was Sony's notion of kit optical design...

For such mundane apps --or when the results are easily quantified edge-2-edge by people who need to read or OCR the shots-- i have to maintain handy an old NX100 w/ its 20-50 kit (phones struggle shooting boards or charts in windowless conf rooms)

Perhaps one day --when the hell is freezing ...-- Samsung will make an E-mount version of its NX lenses (e.g., think of the 16-50s, besides the kits!), which generate comparatively stellar IQ vs. my sony kits ...

Or Sony will redesign its 16-50 Cinderella kit into an MK2.

Edit: Back to the OP, a quick comparison SEL18-55 vs. NX 20-50, both my best copies, set at 20mm, F/3.5-5.6, JPG and exposure settings to level the field, full size. My eyes and OCR s/w can't extract much of SEL's peripheral output, despite its larger size and better built vs. the tiny plasticky NX20-50. The SEL18-55 starts competing stopped down at 8 vs. the NX open at 3.5; both are arguably comparable in the 30 to 40mm sweet range.